DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Instant application is CON of Patent No. US 12,148,055 B2 and Patent No. US 10,922,767 B2. Claims 1-16 are presented for examination. Examiner has established objection for claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15-16; double patenting rejection for claims 1-16; § 101 rejection for claims 1-16; and § 103 rejection for claims 1-16 in the instant Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
. . . an application server coupled with the database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of real-estate transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for the user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for the recipient maintained with a second financial institution, the application server further configured to:
. . .
generate real estate transfer instructions data based on the received real estate transaction data and identified recipient account information;
There should be indefinite article in front of both “user” and “recipient” because they appear in claim 1 for the first time; and there should be definite article in front of “identified recipient account information” because it has appeared in claim 1 previously. Applicant could amend claim 1 to recite:
. . . an application server coupled with the database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of real-estate transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for [[the]] a user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for [[the]] a recipient maintained with a second financial institution, the application server further configured to:
. . .
generate real estate transfer instructions data based on the received real estate transaction data and the identified recipient account information;
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to transmit a message to the device of the third party, the message comprising an indication of a task to be completed by the third party related to the real estate transaction.
There should be indefinite article in front of “third party” because it has not appeared in claims 1 and 2 previously. Applicant could amend claim 2 to recite:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to transmit a message to the device of [[the]] a third party, the message comprising an indication of a task to be completed by the third party related to the real estate transaction.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the third party comprise one or more of an agent of the first party, an agent of the second party . . .
There should be a colon (“:”) after “one or more of” because it is followed by a list. Applicant could amend claim 4 to recite:
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the third party comprise one or more of: an agent of the first party, an agent of the second party . . .
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the device comprises an application running thereon, and wherein the application causes the device to: capture the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; . . .
There should be no article in front of both “one or more images” and “one or more documents” because they appear in claims 1 and 5 for the first time. Applicant could amend claim 5 to recite:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the device comprises an application running thereon, and wherein the application causes the device to: capture [[the]] one or more images of [[the]] one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; . . .
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the notification comprises electronically generated one or more images of the one or more documents based on the processed one or more images.
There should be indefinite article in front of “notification” because it has not appeared in claims 1, 5, and 6 previously. Applicant could amend claim 6 to recite:
6. The system of claim 5, wherein [[the]] a notification comprises electronically generated one or more images of the one or more documents based on the processed one or more images.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. The system of claim 5, wherein the notification comprises a link to the data representative of the one or more documents stored on the application server.
There should be indefinite article in front of “notification” because it has not appeared in claims 1, 5, and 7 previously; and there should be word “extracted” in front of “data” because it refers to claim 5 reciting “extract the data representative of the one or more documents.” Applicant could amend claim 7 to recite:
7. The system of claim 5, wherein [[the]] a notification comprises a link to the extracted data representative of the one or more documents stored on the application server.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. The system of claim 5, wherein the application is further configured to; send the one or more images of the check to a check image server;
There should be indefinite article in front of “check” because it has not appeared in claims 1, 5, and 8 previously; and there should be colon (“:”) instead of semi-colon (“;”) after “configured to.” Applicant could amend claim 8 to recite:
8. The system of claim 5, wherein the application is further configured to:[[;]]
send the one or more images of [[the]] a check to a check image server;
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. The system of claim 5, wherein the application server receives the processed check image from the check image server instead from the device.
There should be indefinite article in front of “processed check image” and “check image server” because they have not appeared in claims 1, 5, and 9 previously. Applicant could amend claim 9 to recite:
9. The system of claim 5, wherein the application server receives [[the]] a processed check image from [[the]] a check image server instead from the device.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. The system of claim 5, wherein processing the check image creates a legally compliant check image.
There should be indefinite article in front of “check image” because it has not appeared in claims 1, 5, and 10 previously. Applicant could amend claim 10 to recite:
10. The system of claim 5, wherein processing [[the]] a check image creates a legally compliant check image.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the device of the third party comprises an application running thereon, and wherein the device receives an electronically scanned copy of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction, and the application further causes the device to: process the scanned copy to generate the document data representative of the one or more documents; and upload the document data to the application server.
There should be indefinite article in front of “third party,” and no article in front of “one or more documents” and “document data” because they have not appeared in claims 1 and 11 previously. Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the device of [[the]] a third party comprises an application running thereon, and wherein the device receives an electronically scanned copy of [[the]] one or more documents related to the real estate transaction, and the application further causes the device to: process the scanned copy to generate the document data representative of the one or more documents; and upload [[the]] document data to the application server.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. The system of claim 1, wherein one of the one or more documents is an agreement between one or more of parties related to the real estate transaction, wherein the application server is configured to generate and send the both notifications based on information in the agreement.
There should be no article in front of “one or more documents” and “both notifications” because they have not appeared in claims 1 and 12 previously. Applicant could amend claim 12 to recite:
12. The system of claim 1, wherein one of [[the]] one or more documents is an agreement between one or more of parties related to the real estate transaction, wherein the application server is configured to generate and send [[the]] both notifications based on information in the agreement.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
15. The system of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to: receive an authentication credential associated with the one or more documents; and authenticate a party related to the real estate transaction before storing the data representative of the one or more documents.
There should be no article in front of “one or more documents” and “data” because they have not appeared in claims 1 and 15 previously. Applicant could amend claim 15 to recite:
15. The system of claim 1, wherein the application server is further configured to: receive an authentication credential associated with [[the]] one or more documents; and authenticate a party related to the real estate transaction before storing [[the]] data representative of the one or more documents.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the application further executes image processing on the one or more images of the one or more documents to verify that the captured one or more images conform with the one or more image quality requirements, and wherein extracting the data representative of the one or more documents is in response to the verification.
There should be no article in front of “one or more images,” “one or more documents,” “captured one or more images,” “one or more quality requirements,” and “data” because they have not appeared in claims 1 and 16 previously. Applicant could amend claim 16 to recite:
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the application further executes image processing on [[the]] one or more images of [[the]] one or more documents to verify that [[the]] captured one or more images conform with [[the]] one or more image quality requirements, and wherein extracting [[the]] data representative of the one or more documents is in response to the verification.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of Patent No. US 12,148,055 B2; and over claims 1-12 of Patent No. US 10,922,767 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are obvious over the reference claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-16 is a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. A system, however, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See, e.g., In re Danly 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 582, 531 (CCPA 1959). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1657 (bd Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Based on Applicant’s Specification, “an application server” is not limited to a hardware server: see [00134] – [00136] of Applicant’s Specification. Thus, the structural limitations of instant claims 1-16 are interpreted as computer code per-se and are therefore not statutory subject matter.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-16 are not statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test. To overcome this rejection, Applicant could amend the body of the claim language of the independent system claim 1 with “a processor and memory combined with the processor …”. For the purpose of further examination of instant application, Examiner will consider “a application server” to be a hardware component.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-16, however, recite an abstract idea of facilitating real estate transactions. The creation of facilitating real estate transactions, as recited in the independent claim 1 belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial transactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claim1, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“identify the recipient account information related to the real estate transaction based on a comparison of the received identifier of the recipient against the stored recipient identifier” (claim 1); and
“generate real estate transfer instructions data based on the received real estate transaction data and identified recipient account information” (claim 1).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claim 1 recite additional elements:
“a database” (claim 1); and
“an application server coupled with the database” (claim 1).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“store information associated with a plurality of real-estate transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for the user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for the recipient maintained with a second financial institution” (claim 1);
“receive real estate transaction data associated with a payment related to the real estate transaction from a device, the real estate transaction data comprising an identifier of the recipient and the user account information” (claim 1); and
“forward the real estate transfer instructions data to the first financial institution based on the received user account information to cause a deposit into the recipient account” (claim 1).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claim 1 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claim 1 is non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claim 1 (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[00134] Various embodiments may also be implemented primarily in hardware using, for example, components such as application specific integrated circuits (“ASICs”), or field programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”). Implementation of a hardware state machine capable of performing the functions described herein will also be apparent to those skilled in the relevant art. Various embodiments may also be implemented using a combination of both hardware and software.
[00135] Furthermore, those of skill in the art will appreciate that the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, circuits, and method steps described in connection with the above described figures and the embodiments disclosed herein can often be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both. To clearly illustrate this interchangeability of hardware and software, various illustrative components, blocks, modules, circuits, and steps have been described above generally in terms of their functionality. Whether such functionality is implemented as hardware or software depends upon the particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system. Skilled persons can implement the described functionality in varying ways for each particular application, but such implementation decisions should not be interpreted as causing a departure from the scope of the invention. In addition, the grouping of functions within a module, block, circuit or step is for ease of description. Specific functions or steps can be moved from one module, block or circuit to another without departing from the invention.
[00136] Moreover, the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, and methods described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (“DSP”), an ASIC, FPGA or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general-purpose processor can be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor can be any processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor can also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, for example, a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration.
This is a description of general-purpose computer. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claim 1 are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “storing,” “receiving,” and “forwarding” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “storing,” “receiving,” and “forwarding” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A – Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and forwards information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claim 1 “receive” and “forward” information over a network in a merely generic manner. Further, similarly to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the additional limitations of independent claim 1 “store” information in memory. The courts have recognized “storing,” “receiving,” and “forwarding” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claim 1 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claim 1 is non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-16 depend on independent claim 1. The elements in dependent claims 2-16, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“transmitting a message to the device of the third party, the message comprising an indication of a task to be completed by the third party related to the real estate transaction” (claim 2: insignificant extra solution activity);
“receiving confirmation from the device of the third party that the task has been completed, wherein document data comprises the confirmation” (claim 3: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the third party comprise one or more of an agent of the first party, an agent of the second party, an escrow agent, an appraiser, and inspector, repairman, a financial institution maintaining an account related to one of the first and second parties related to the real estate transaction, or any combination thereof” (claim 4: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the device comprises an application running thereon, and wherein the application causes the device to: capture the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; process the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; extract the data representative of the one or more documents; and forward the extracted data representative of the one or more documents to the application server” (claim 5: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the notification comprises electronically generated one or more images of the one or more documents based on the processed one or more images” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the notification comprises a link to the data representative of the one or more documents stored on the application server” (claim 7: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“sending the one or more images of the check to a check image server; receiving a processed check image back from the check image server; and providing the processed check image to the application server” (claim 8: insignificant extra solution activity);
“receiving the processed check image from the check image server instead from the device” (claim 9: insignificant extra solution activity);
“processing the check image creates a legally compliant check image” (claim 10: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the device of the third party comprises an application running thereon, and wherein the device receives an electronically scanned copy of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction, and the application further causes the device to: process the scanned copy to generate the document data representative of the one or more documents; and upload the document data to the application server” (claim 11: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except the “receiving” that is insignificant extra solution activity);
“one of the one or more documents is an agreement between one or more of parties related to the real estate transaction, wherein the application server is configured to generate and send the both notifications based on information in the agreement” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the application server includes portals for parties related to the real estate transaction that allows the parties to access the application server and manage accounts related thereto” (claim 13: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the application server further comprises a database management resource for managing the database, a payment processing resource for managing payment transactions, and an authentication resource for managing authentication of users of the application server” (claim 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“receiving an authentication credential associated with the one or more documents; and authenticating a party related to the real estate transaction before storing the data representative of the one or more documents” (claim 15: further narrowing the recited abstract idea, except the “receiving” that is insignificant extra solution activity); and
“the application further executes image processing on the one or more images of the one or more documents to verify that the captured one or more images conform with the one or more image quality requirements, and extracting the data representative of the one or more documents is in response to the verification” (claim 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-16 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claim 1 and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in § 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle (US 9,852,406 B2) in view of Shim (WO 2019/112095 A1).
As to Independent Claim 1
Doyle shows:
a database, and a system coupled with the database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for the user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for the recipient maintained with a second financial institution (Doyle: col. 2, lines 46-67; col. 3, lines 1-2 and 62-67; col. 4, lines 1-4; and col. 17, lines 1-26), the application server further configured to:
receive transaction data associated with a payment related to the transaction from a device, the transaction data comprising an identifier of the recipient and the user account information (Doyle: col. 2, lines 51-57);
identify the recipient account information related to the transaction based on a comparison of the received identifier of the recipient against the stored recipient identifier (Doyle: col. 2, lines 62-67; and col. 3, line 1);
generate transfer instructions data based on the received transaction data and identified recipient account information (Doyle: col. 2, lines 57-60 and 65-67; and col. 3, line 1); and
forward the transfer instructions data to the first financial institution based on the received user account information to cause a deposit into the recipient account (Doyle: col. 3, lines 1-2).
Doyle does not show:
a transaction being a real estate transaction; and
a system being an application server coupled with the database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of real estate transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for the user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for the recipient maintained with a second financial institution.
Shim shows:
a transaction being a real estate transaction (Shim: page 3 – see under “Summary of the Invention”); and
a system being an application server coupled with the database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of real estate transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for the user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for the recipient maintained with a second financial institution (Shim: page 4, ¶ 4 disclosing: “An escrow server according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a transaction contract information receiver for receiving first transaction contract information from a transaction server and second transaction contract information including at least one party of the first transaction contract . . . ”).
Motivation to combine Doyle and Shim:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle by a transaction being a real estate transaction and a system being an application server coupled with the database and configured to store information associated with a plurality of transactions, the information including user account information related to a user account for the user maintained by a first financial institution, a recipient identifier, and recipient account information related to a recipient account for the recipient maintained with a second financial institution of Shim in order to provide system which can centrally and integrally manage real estate transactions (Shim: page 2 – see under “Summary of the Invention”).
As to claim 2: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle also shows transmitting a message to the device of the third party, the message comprising an indication of a task to be completed by the third party related to the real estate transaction (Doyle: col. 2, lines 50-51 and 62-64).
As to claim 3: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 2. Doyle also shows receiving confirmation from the device of the third party that the task has been completed, wherein document data comprises the confirmation (Doyle: col. 5, lines 26-28).
As to claim 4: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle also shows that the third party comprise one or more of: an agent of the first party, an agent of the second party, an escrow agent, an appraiser, and inspector, repairman, a financial institution maintaining an account related to one of the first and second parties related to the real estate transaction, or any combination thereof (Doyle: col. 3, lines 62-67).
As to claim 12: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle does not show that one of the one or more documents is an agreement between one or more of parties related to the real estate transaction; and generating and sending the both notifications based on information in the agreement. Shim shows that one of the one or more documents is an agreement between one or more of parties related to the real estate transaction (Shim: page 2 – see under “Tech Solution”); and generate and send the both notifications based on information in the agreement (Shim: Page 11, ¶ 4 disclosing: “FIG. 7, a message indicating completion of the report on the real estate related matters (notification of registration of transfer of ownership of the legal person's ownership and notification of acceptance) and payment completion message (registration of transfer of object and completion of payment) are shown together.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle by one of the one or more documents being an agreement between one or more of parties related to the real estate transaction; and generating and sending the both notifications based on information in the agreement of Shim in order to provide system which can centrally and integrally manage real estate transactions (Shim: page 2 – see under “Summary of the Invention”).
As to claim 13: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle does not show that the application server includes portals for parties related to the real estate transaction that allows the parties to access the application server and manage accounts related thereto. Shim shows that the application server includes portals for parties related to the real estate transaction that allows the parties to access the application server and manage accounts related thereto (Shim: page 4, ¶ 4 disclosing: “An escrow server according to an embodiment of the present invention includes a transaction contract information receiver for receiving first transaction contract information from a transaction server and second transaction contract information including at least one party of the first transaction contract . . . ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle by the application server including portals for parties related to the real estate transaction that allows the parties to access the application server and manage accounts related thereto of Shim in order to provide system which can centrally and integrally manage real estate transactions (Shim: page 2 – see under “Summary of the Invention”).
As to claim 14: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle does not show a database management resource for managing the database, a payment processing resource for managing payment transactions, and an authentication resource for managing authentication of users of the application server. Shim shows a database management resource for managing the database, a payment processing resource for managing payment transactions, and an authentication resource for managing authentication of users of the application server (Shim: page 5, ¶ 6 disclosing: “The transaction server 100 generates transaction contract information between the contracting parties and transmits the transaction contract information to the escrow server 200 . . . ”; and page 8, ¶ 5 disclosing: “In step S302, the escrow server 200 determines whether all parties of the first transaction contract, that is, the seller and the buyer, perform authentication.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle by a database management resource for managing the database, a payment processing resource for managing payment transactions, and an authentication resource for managing authentication of users of the application server of Shim in order to provide system which can centrally and integrally manage real estate transactions (Shim: page 2 – see under “Summary of the Invention”).
As to claim 15: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle does not show receiving an authentication credential associated with the one or more documents; and authenticating a party related to the real estate transaction before storing the data representative of the one or more documents. Shim shows receiving an authentication credential associated with the one or more documents; and authenticating a party related to the real estate transaction before storing the data representative of the one or more documents (Shim: page 8, ¶ 5 disclosing: “In step S302, the escrow server 200 determines whether all parties of the first transaction contract, that is, the seller and the buyer, perform authentication . . . ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle by receiving an authentication credential associated with the one or more documents; and authenticating a party related to the real estate transaction before storing the data representative of the one or more documents of Shim in order to provide system which can centrally and integrally manage real estate transactions (Shim: page 2 – see under “Summary of the Invention”).
Claims 5-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle of Shim, and further in view of Prasad (US 7,885,880 B1).
As to claim 5: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle in view of Shim does not show the device comprising an application running thereon; and the application causing the device to: capture the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; process the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; extract the data representative of the one or more documents; and forward the extracted data representative of the one or more documents to the application server. Prasad shows the device comprising an application running thereon (Prasad: col. 6, lines 48-52); and the application causing the device to: capture the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction (Prasad: col. 7, lines 4-12); process the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction (Prasad: col. 7, lines 13-21); extract the data representative of the one or more documents (Prasad: col. 9, lines 49-56); and forward the extracted data representative of the one or more documents to the application server (Prasad: col. 7, lines 22-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by the device comprising an application running thereon; and the application causing the device to: capture the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; process the one or more images of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction; extract the data representative of the one or more documents; and forward the extracted data representative of the one or more documents to the application server of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 6: Doyle in view of Shim, and further in view of Prasad, shows all the elements of claim 5. Doyle in view of Shim does not show the notification comprising electronically generated one or more images of the one or more documents based on the processed one or more images. Prasad shows the notification comprising electronically generated one or more images of the one or more documents based on the processed one or more images (Prasad: col. 7, lines 31-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by the notification comprising electronically generated one or more images of the one or more documents based on the processed one or more images of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 7: Doyle in view of Shim, and further in view of Prasad, shows all the elements of claim 5. Doyle in view of Shim does not show the notification comprising a link to the data representative of the one or more documents stored on the application server. Prasad shows the notification comprising a link to the data representative of the one or more documents stored on the application server (Prasad: col. 8, lines 39-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by the notification comprising a link to the data representative of the one or more documents stored on the application server of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 8: Doyle in view of Shim, and further in view of Prasad, shows all the elements of claim 5. Doyle in view of Shim does not show sending the one or more images of the check to a check image server; receiving a processed check image back from the check image server; and providing the processed check image to the application server. Prasad shows sending the one or more images of the check to a check image server (Prasad: col. 9, lines 38-40); receiving a processed check image back from the check image server (Prasad: col. 9, lines 38-56); and providing the processed check image to the application server (Prasad: col. 7, lines 22-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by sending the one or more images of the check to a check image server; receiving a processed check image back from the check image server; and providing the processed check image to the application server of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 9: Doyle in view of Shim, and further in view of Prasad, shows all the elements of claim 5. Doyle in view of Shim does not show receiving the processed check image from the check image server instead from the device. Prasad shows receiving the processed check image from the check image server instead from the device (Prasad: col. 7, lines 58-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by receiving the processed check image from the check image server instead from the device of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 10: Doyle in view of Shim, and further in view of Prasad, shows all the elements of claim 5. Doyle in view of Shim does not show processing the check image creating a legally compliant check image. Prasad shows processing the check image creating a legally compliant check image (Prasad: col. 7, lines 22-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by processing the check image creating a legally compliant check image of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 11: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle in view of Shim does not show the device of the third party comprising an application running thereon, and wherein the device receives an electronically scanned copy of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction, and the application further causing the device to: process the scanned copy to generate the document data representative of the one or more documents, and upload the document data to the application server. Prasad shows the device of the third party comprising an application running thereon, and wherein the device receives an electronically scanned copy of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction, and the application further causing the device to: process the scanned copy to generate the document data representative of the one or more documents, and upload the document data to the application server (Prasad: col. 6, lines 57-64; col. 7, lines 4-12; and col. 10, lines 59-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by the device of the third party comprising an application running thereon, and wherein the device receives an electronically scanned copy of the one or more documents related to the real estate transaction, and the application further causing the device to: process the scanned copy to generate the document data representative of the one or more documents, and upload the document data to the application server of Prasad in order to avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
As to claim 16: Doyle in view of Shim shows all the elements of claim 1. Doyle in view of Shim does not show executing image processing on the one or more images of the one or more documents to verify that the captured one or more images conform with the one or more image quality requirements, and extracting the data representative of the one or more documents is in response to the verification. Prasad shows show executing image processing on the one or more images of the one or more documents to verify that the captured one or more images conform with the one or more image quality requirements, and extracting the data representative of the one or more documents is in response to the verification (Prasad: col. 7, lines 27-30; col. 8, lines 46-59; and col. 9, lines 35-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Doyle in view of Shim by show executing image processing on the one or more images of the one or more documents to verify that the captured one or more images conform with the one or more image quality requirements, and extracting the data representative of the one or more documents is in response to the verification of Prasad in order avoid incomplete transaction (Prasad: col. 1, lines 52-53).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hartnett (US 2013/0332374 A1) discloses: “A method on a server for detecting fraud in a real estate transaction involving a real estate interest is provided. Parties to the real estate transaction are defined and parties may register with the server. The server receives a first unique identifier for the first party, a unique identifier for the real estate interest, a first purchase amount for the real estate interest, a second unique identifier for the second party, and a second purchase amount. The server compares the first purchase amount with the second purchase amount and the server may transmit a request for a notarization document. The server receives the notarization document, including a third purchase amount. The server compares the first purchase amount with the third purchase amount. Then, the server stores an indicator that the real estate transaction has been vetted.”
Del Monte (US 2009/0313158 A1) discloses: “A system and method for processor-enabled interactive real estate deals, the system comprising storing, on one or more processor readable media that are operatively coupled to one or more processors. The database includes electronic deal information including information representing at least one real estate transaction, buyer information representing at least one buyer associated real estate transaction(s), seller information representing seller(s) respectively associated with real estate transaction(s), broker information including information representing buyer broker(s) and seller broker(s), deal point information representing deal point(s) associated with the real estate transaction(s), management company information representing management company/companies and deal point information representing at least one deal point associated with the real estate transaction(s). At least one contract is provided as a function of selection(s) of the deal information, the buyer information, the seller information, the broker information, the broker information, the deal point information, the management company information, the deal point information and the contract template information for a real estate transaction.”
Chazan (AU 2004250269 A1) discloses: “The present invention relates to a system and method for facilitating on-line payment particularly for goods or services purchased via a merchant site on the Internet. The system enables payment from an existing customer account at a financial institution, but does not require the user to provide credit card details. The payment is implemented in real-time from the customer account to a merchant account via a financial institution application such as an Internet banking website. An interface is provided which is initiated via the merchant site and which then interfaces the customer computer to the financial application having access to the customer computer's account. The customer can then enter payment details directly with the financial institution to pay the merchant directly for the transaction.”
Byrne (WO 2006/086768 A2) discloses: “A browser plug-in to drive a device for securely transmitting documents in real-time over the Internet into an enterprise's computing environment is provided. Leveraging the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, a system and method for providing a browser plug-in that allows a bank customer to scan checks using a personal computer and deposit the checks via the browser to a bank account is provided.”
Gardella, William P. "E-commerce in Real Estate Transactions." Prob. & Prop. 15 (2001): 45.
Stonefield, Sam. "Electronic Real Estate Documents: Context, Unresolved Cost-Benefit Issues and a Recommended Decisional Process." W. New Eng. L. Rev. 24 (2002): 205.
Gose, John A. "Real estate conveyances from livery of seisin to electronic transfer: Real estate transactions enter the digital/electronic World." Real Estate Issues 33.2 (2008): 59-66.
Whitman, Dale A. "Digital recording of real estate conveyances." J. Marshall L. Rev. 32 (1998): 227.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691